CellOS: Zero-touch Softwarized Open Cellular Networks
Leonardo Bonati∗, Salvatore D’Oro∗, Lorenzo Bertizzolo∗, Emrecan
Demirors∗, Zhangyu Guan†, Stefano Basagni∗, Tommaso Melodia∗
∗Institute for the Wireless Internet of Things, Northeastern
University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
†Department of Electrical Engineering, The State University of New
York (SUNY) at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
Email: {l.bonati, s.doro, bertizzolo.l, e.demirors, s.basagni,
t.melodia}@northeastern.edu,
[email protected]
Abstract—Current cellular networks rely on closed and in- flexible
infrastructure tightly controlled by a handful of vendors. Their
configuration requires vendor support and lengthy manual
operations, which prevent Telco Operators (TOs) from unlocking the
full network potential and from performing fine grained performance
optimization, especially on a per-user basis. To address these key
issues, this paper introduces CellOS, a fully automated
optimization and management framework for cellular networks that
requires negligible intervention (“zero-touch”). CellOS leverages
softwarization and automatic optimization prin- ciples to bridge
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) and cross- layer optimization.
Unlike state-of-the-art SDN-inspired solutions for cellular
networking, CellOS: (i) Hides low-level network details through a
general virtual network abstraction; (ii) allows TOs to define
high-level control objectives to dictate the desired network
behavior without requiring knowledge of optimization techniques,
and (iii) automatically generates and executes dis- tributed
control programs for simultaneous optimization of het- erogeneous
control objectives on multiple network slices. CellOS has been
implemented and evaluated on an indoor testbed with two different
LTE-compliant implementations: OpenAirInterface and srsLTE. We
further demonstrated CellOS capabilities on the long-range outdoor
POWDER-RENEW PAWR 5G platform. Results from scenarios with multiple
base stations and users show that CellOS is platform-independent
and self-adapts to diverse network deployments. Our investigation
shows that CellOS out- performs existing solutions on key metrics,
including throughput (up to 86% improvement), energy efficiency (up
to 84%) and fairness (up to 29%).
Index Terms—Software-defined Networking, Zero-touch, 5G.
This article has been published on Computer Networks. Please cite
it as L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, L. Bertizzolo, E. Demirors, Z. Guan, S.
Basagni, and T. Melodia, “CellOS: Zero-touch Softwarized Open
Cellular Networks,” Computer Networks, vol. 180, October 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107380. ©2020. This manuscript version is
made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
I. INTRODUCTION
Current, state-of-the-art cellular networks rely on propri- etary
and inflexible hardware and software solutions produced and
maintained by few vendors. These closed architectures generally
require manual configuration, preventing Telco Op- erators (TOs)
from being able to fully controlling resources such as spectrum,
computing and transmission power to opti- mize network performance
[1–3]. Remedies to this fundamen- tal limitation have been
piecemeal, often based on offline so- lutions for frequency
assignment and network planning [4, 5].
This work was supported in part by the US National Science
Foundation under Grant CNS-1618727 and in part by the US Office of
Naval Research under Grants N00014-19-1-2409 and
N00014-20-1-2132.
Optimizing time-sensitive network functionalities also rests on
heuristics often engraved in the hardware fabric [6, 7]. As of
today, autonomous optimization of network parameters and swift and
flexible control of real-time requirements of lower layer protocols
are a territory that is largely uncharted.
Through Software-Defined Networking (SDN), TOs are breaking the
imposed vendor lock-in by leaving the static and monolithic Radio
Access Network (RAN) architecture in favor of using a dynamically
programmable, i.e., softwarized, open RAN for rapid and innovative
network deployments [1, 2, 8– 10]. Although the benefits of such an
open and multi-vendor approach have been showcased widely [11], how
to fully embed softwarization in the future 5G infrastructure
remains unsettled, as the highly dynamic and distributed nature of
cellular networks is not amenable to be addressed by the
centralized SDN approach. This issue is further exacerbated by the
increasing densification of cellular deployments and users, which
makes non-automated control ineffective, if feasible at all. This
is witnessed by recent works on cellular and wireless SDN clearly
lamenting that the swift dynamics of these net- works generate an
overwhelming amount of signaling traffic, hardly bearable by
traditional softwarized controllers [12– 15]. As a consequence,
current hardware implementations and centralized softwarized
approaches do not allow timely optimization of network behavior and
the increasingly needed superior network performance [16,
17].
TOs are extremely sensitive to these issues. For example, the
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) formed the
Zero-touch Network and Service Management group to define
fully-automated—zero-touch—paradigms to provide flexibility to the
highly decentralized technology of future wireless [18]. Similarly,
the latest releases of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) include a functional split of 5G NR1 base stations (called
gNBs) capabilities, so that network control decisions that involve
large time scales are made at the gNB Central Unit (gNB-CU), while
lower layer and time-sensitive procedures are executed at the gNB
Distributed Units (gNB-DUs) deployed closer to the
1Initially introduced as “New Radio” in [19], the term NR now
generically refers to the 5G Radio Access Network, having lost its
original meaning in the latest 3GPP specifications [20].
ar X
iv :2
00 4.
03 41
8v 3
This paper contributes to the efforts toward automated
softwarization and self optimization of future 5G networks by
proposing CellOS, the first zero-touch software frame- work for
next-generation cellular networks. Like an operating system
interfacing hardware and software functions (whence the name),
CellOS flexibly bridges SDN with cross-layer distributed
optimization techniques for the cellular architec- ture. We push
the SDN paradigm beyond the traditional separation of control and
data planes, in that we also decouple control from optimization,
adding further and unprecedented flexibility. Responding fully to
ETSI requirements and industry interests, CellOS enables zero-touch
control and optimization of low-level network functionalities by
providing TOs with an efficient, automated, modular, and flexible
network con- trol platform. Specifically, CellOS (i) allows TOs to
define centralized and high-level control objectives (e.g.,
“maximize network throughput”) without requiring expertise in
cross- layer optimization theory or knowledge of network specifics;
(ii) provides a general virtual network abstraction that shields
the TO from the complexity of a sophisticated framework by
abstracting network infrastructure and parameters, including those
known at run-time only (e.g., user-to-base station asso- ciations
and channel information); (iii) automatically converts high-level
control directives into distributed cross-layer con- trol programs
to be executed at each network edge element, and (iv) enables
zero-touch optimization of distinct control objectives on different
network slices coexisting on the same infrastructure [24].
Figure 1 illustrates the overall structure of CellOS, exem- plified
for the 3GPP network architecture.
Optimization Framework Problem
Telco Operator
Fig. 1: CellOS at a glance as instantiated for the 3GPP
architecture.
The upper-left side of the figure depicts the high level
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that the TOs can use to
define the network control objectives. On the bottom we indicate
the components of the framework for automatic generation of the
optimization problems and their decomposition into control
programs. In a 3GPP scenario this unit corresponds to the gNB-CU, a
logical node primarily concerned with control decisions at larger
time-scales. On the
right, we describe the softwarized RAN that will execute the
generated programs. In the 3GPP context, this task would be carried
out by the gNB-DU, a logical node that makes time- sensitive
decisions involving the lower layers of the protocol stack, and
that is interfaced with the gNB-CU.
We have prototyped CellOS on heterogeneous Long Term Evolution
(LTE)-compliant testbeds. We have chosen two different
implementations of the LTE stack, namely, Ope- nAirInterface (OAI)
[25] and srsLTE [26], to show that our framework is not tied to any
specific RAN infrastructure. Our experiments consider a variety of
scenarios with multiple base stations and users to show that CellOS
optimizes the network performance by swiftly adapting to varying
network configurations and settings. We also show the gains in
perfor- mance that CellOS can bring to RAN implementations for
cellular networks, such as OAI and srsLTE, as well as to Medium
Access Control (MAC)-layer scheduling algorithms commonly used in
cellular networks, i.e., proportional fairness, greedy, and
round-robin scheduling algorithms. Results of the comparative
performance evaluation of CellOS and prevailing baseline solutions
show that using our framework remarkably improves key performance
metrics, such as throughput (up to 86%), energy efficiency (up to
84%) and user fairness (up to 29%). We also show that CellOS is
transparent to the use of network slicing technologies [27–29],
enabling TOs to simultaneously optimize different network functions
on distinct network slices. To the best our knowledge this is the
first such demonstration, paving the way to the independent
management of optimized network slices in 5G systems. Finally, and
for the first time, we provide evidence of the potentials of
zero-touch optimization in a softwarized RAN ecosystem by testing
CellOS on the long-range open-source POWDER-RENEW PAWR 5G platform
[30, 31]. Our results show that CellOS seamlessly interacts with
the LTE protocol stack by optimizing resource allocation
strategies, successfully increasing the average throughput by
23%.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Sec- tion II
presents CellOS in the 3GPP context, and a succinct overview of its
main components. Details of its architecture are provided in
Section III. An example of CellOS operations is given in Section
IV. An LTE-compliant prototype of CellOS is illustrated in Section
V. Section VI reports the performance evaluation of CellOS on
various testbeds, including a lab bench setup, the Arena testbed
[32], and the POWDER-RENEW PAWR 5G platform [30, 31], using both
the OAI and srsLTE RAN implementations with multiple base stations
and users. Work related to our research is surveyed in Section VII.
Finally, Section VIII concludes the paper.
II. CELLOS IN A 5G FLAIR
This section provides a primer on 5G NR, and an overview of the
main CellOS components and on how they can be integrated in the
CU/DU functional split introduced by NR.
A. A Brief Overview of 5G NR
Compared to LTE, the 3GPP introduced a series of inno- vations in
NR both in terms of layers of the protocol stack
3
and functionalities, including the support for a wider range of
carrier frequencies [33]. The NR frame was endowed with a more
flexible structure, which, although still being based on Orthogonal
Frequency-division Multiplexing (OFDM), con- cerns a variable
number of symbols per subframe and larger bandwidths with up to 400
MHz per carrier. The 5G RAN can operate in two distinct
configurations: Non-standalone, i.e., paired with an LTE core
network, and standalone, i.e., connected to the new 5G Core.
Finally, NR base stations, called gNBs, can be deployed in a
distributed manner across the network, dividing various parts of
the NR protocol stack in different hardware components.
One of the main innovations that NR introduces is the split of the
layers of the protocol stack of gNBs into distinct units. These,
namely gNB Central Unit (gNB-CU) and gNB Dis- tributed Unit
(gNB-DU), can be deployed in separate locations across the cellular
network [21] (see Figure 1). Specifically, the gNB-CU, which can
control multiple gNB-DUs, involves the higher layers of the 3GPP
protocol stack (i.e., Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP),
Service Data Adaptation Protocol (SDAP) and Radio Resource Control
(RRC)) and makes decisions at larger time scales. The gNB-DU,
instead, is deployed closer to the edge of the network and executes
time- sensitive procedures, which involve the Radio Link Control
(RLC), MAC, and Physical (PHY) layers of the protocol stack.
Moreover, the PHY layer of the gNB-DU can be additionally be broken
down in a standalone gNB Radio Unit (gNB-RU), which performs
functions such as power amplification and signal
transmission/reception [34].
While proposed by the 3GPP in [35], this separation has received
significant attention due to O-RAN [23], which defined a series of
interfaces between the aforementioned gNB elements and a RAN
Intelligent Controller (RIC), deployed at the edge of the network.
The RIC executes different functions of O-RAN, such as radio
resource management, higher layers procedures and policy
optimization, and control of RAN elements and resources. Moreover,
the RIC includes an application layer, which can host third-party
components, such as CellOS, that regulate the behavior of the
network.
B. CellOS in a Nutshell
A bird’s-eye view of the CellOS architecture is shown in Figure 1.
In line with the 3GPP functional split [21], CellOS is partitioned
in gNB-CU and gNB-DU modular units to decouple the definition of
network control procedures (at the gNB-CU) from their execution (at
the gNB-DU). CellOS main components are the interface to the TO
(providing the Problem Definition APIs) and the automatic
Optimization Framework at the gNB-CU, and the Softwarized RAN
Environment at the gNB-DU.
By means of a rich variety of APIs, the TO sets the net- work
control objective through high level, highly descriptive directives
(e.g., “maximize throughput”), providing few key parameters (e.g.,
the number of base stations). That is all the TO needs to specify,
as CellOS abstracts the underlying network structure, hiding
lower-level details to the TO and mapping network elements such as
base stations and User
Equipments (UEs) into virtual ones (Network Abstraction block of
our Optimization Framework). As soon as the desired control
objective is specified, CellOS converts it into a set of
mathematical expressions that are used to define a centralized
optimization problem, namely, the analytical representation of the
optimization objective and of its constraints (Problem Generation
block in Figure 1). The generated problem is then automatically
decomposed into a set of distributed sub- problems, one for each of
the edge elements (e.g., base stations). This is done by the
decomposition engine, a core component of the Problem Decomposition
block. Based on rigorous mathematical techniques, the centralized
problem is partitioned both horizontally (decoupling variables
belonging to different elements) and vertically (decoupling
variables from different layers of each element’s protocol stack).
The obtained sub-problems are then automatically converted into
executable programs that are individually dispatched to each
element (distributed solution programs, in the Softwarized RAN
Environment). Finally, each base station updates the distributed
solution program with the real-time network pa- rameters gathered
from the RAN software stacks, and runs it through its local solver.
It is worth mentioning that CellOS is independent of any specific
RAN and can be interfaced with any other current or future 5G
softwarized cellular stack. Finally, since CellOS edge elements
have access to network real-time information by interfacing with
the RAN software stacks (e.g., OAI, srsLTE), they update the
received distributed control programs, adapting to the network
time- varying dynamics, such as user arrival/departure, and
mobility.
III. CELLOS ARCHITECTURE
In this section, we describe in details the components of the
CellOS architecture, depicted in Figure 2.
A. Problem Definition APIs
CellOS defines a rich set of APIs to specify general high- level
information about the desired network configuration and
optimization. These APIs include functions to add base sta- tions
and for setting per-user requirements (e.g., minimum rate
guarantees). The network control objective can be specified through
a simple textual string, e.g., max(rate) to maximize the network
rate, min(power) to minimize the overall power consumption.
1. from cellos import Network, Engine
# Network instantiation 2. nwk = Network(bs_num) 3. slices =
nwk.get_slices()
# Optimization problem and optional constraints definition 4.
nwk.set_utility('min(power)', slices[0]) 5.
nwk.add_constraints({'user_min_rate':
[slices[0].get_users(), rate]})
Listing 1: CellOS API example.
An example of CellOS APIs and of the few lines of code needed to
program a network objective are shown in Listing 1. In this
example, the TO instantiates a new network with a
4
function mapper
Problem Generation
Fig. 2: The CellOS architecture.
number bs_num of base stations (line 2), and gets the network
slices instantiated in the network (line 3). An optimization
problem aiming at minimizing the transmission power over a specific
network slice (slices[0]) is then simply set in line 4, with
constraints for guaranteeing a minimum rate defined in line 5. It
is worth noting that existing slices of the network, active
subscribers, and associations of the two, are known a priori by the
TO, and stored, for instance, in the cellular core network. We
observe that very few lines of code are needed for the TO to set
the network goal, after which no further interaction is required.
This is because CellOS, dovetailed with the ETSI zero-touch
principles [18], hides all low-level network details (e.g., channel
status, position of mobile users) from the TO through the network
abstraction module (Section III-B3), and also automatically defines
and distributively solves the optimization problem corresponding to
the set control objective.
While specifying the objective function in textual form is enough
for CellOS to properly work, experienced TOs can define tailor-made
custom and more advanced objective functions, optimization
techniques, and solvers through an extension module. This provides
additional APIs for custom mathematical expressions and
optimization constraints, and it also allows the TO to select
specific optimization techniques and solvers, as well as to achieve
fine-grained control of network parameters and functionalities.
These are then fed to the optimization framework in a way similar
to the preloaded APIs. As of now, CellOS allows to specify
functions expressed as linear combination of capacity,
Signal-to-Interference-plus- Noise Ratio (SINR), power, and energy
efficiency terms, which already enables TOs to formulate a large
number of wireless networking optimization problems [36].
B. Optimization Framework
The heart of CellOS resides in its Optimization Framework, which:
(i) Converts the high-level centralized code into an optimization
problem; (ii) decomposes it into sub-problems;
(iii) creates and maintains an abstraction of the network, and (iv)
dispatches the solution problems to the Softwarized RAN.
1) Problem Generation: In order to transform high-level
specifications into an optimization problem, CellOS first pairs
high-level abstraction directives (control objective and con-
straints) with available network elements (e.g., base stations and
users). This is accomplished by the instance mapper module that
maps physical network elements to their virtual representation, and
converts the control objective defined using high-level CellOS APIs
(Section III-A) into machine- understandable code. For example,
max(sum(log(rate))) is converted into max
∑ u∈U log(ru), where U is the set of UEs
and ru their transmit rate. The generated utility is kept as
general as possible by using symbolic placeholders in lieu of
parameters whose value will only be known at run-time (e.g.,
UE-base station associations, channel coefficients, interfering
signals, etc.). In so doing, our Optimization Framework is UE-
agnostic. It is the base stations that, at run-time, replace the
symbolic placeholders with their current value. Specifically, base
stations interfaced with CellOS expose parameters and variables
that can be tuned and optimized. Thus, placeholders of the
generated problems always match physical network
capabilities.
2) Problem Decomposition: This component of the Opti- mization
Framework partitions the centralized problem into multiple
sub-problems, one for each network element, to be solved
distributively at each base station. In general, the centralized
network control problem can be formalized as the following network
utility maximization problem
maximize x∈X
subject to gi(x) ≤ hi(x), ∀i ∈ I (1)
where x represents the optimization variables (e.g., scheduling
policies or transmission power levels), X is the strategy space
(i.e., the set of all feasible strategy combinations), f(·) is the
network-wide objective function (e.g., the overall capacity or the
total energy efficiency of the network). Inequality (1)
5
represents the set I of constraints (e.g., the transmission power
must be bounded by some constant value; each Physical Resource
Block (PRB) can be allocated to one UE only, etc.). The biggest
challenge in solving (CEN) is that both objective function and
constraints are, in general, coupled to different edge elements and
to different layers of each element protocol stack. Because of this
tight coupling, generating distributed sub-problems that can be
locally solved by each base station becomes challenging.
To address this challenge, CellOS first automatically identi- fies
coupled variables and then applies rigorous decomposition to
generate new sub-instances of (CEN) that are automatically
assembled into uncoupled distributed programs to be executed at
each base station. This is accomplished performing the following
(Figure 2): variable detection and classification, coupling graph
generation, decomposition (through the de- composition engine), and
distributed algorithms generation.
Variable Detection and Classification: CellOS starts by identifying
the optimization variables of the network control problem. This is
done by parsing the generated objective func- tion expression
looking for symbolic placeholders introduced therein. For instance,
in (CEN) CellOS detects x to be the set of optimization variables
of the problem. Then, it determines which layer of the protocol
stack houses which variable, e.g., power belongs to the PHY layer,
scheduling to the MAC layer, and so on. CellOS then identifies to
which base station each variable belongs to. As a result, each
variable is assigned to a specific base station and to one of its
protocol stack layers.
Coupling Graph Generation: After detecting and classi- fying
problem variables, CellOS organizes their coupling in a graph G =
(V,E), where V is the set of variables of the network control
problem, which are joined by an edge in E only if they are coupled.
Similarly to what done in the previous step, coupling among
variables is detected through a symbolic parser. As an example, a
coupling graph for f(x) = x2(x4 + x5) + x3(x4 + x1
x2 ) is shown in Figure 3a.
Variables {xi}i=1,3 and {xj}j=2,4,5 belong to eNB1 and eNB2 (Figure
3b), respectively.
x1
x3
x2
(b)
Fig. 3: (a) Coupling graph for f(x) = x2(x4+x5)+x3(x4+x1/x2); (b)
Network scenario considered in Section IV.
Figure 3a shows that coupling is not limited to variables of a
single eNB, but it might also involve those controlled by other
eNBs.
Decomposition Engine: Variable detection/classification and
coupling graphs are preliminary to automated problem decomposition,
which we perform by using well-established techniques, including
duality theory [37] and decomposition via partial linearization
[16] (additional ones can be imple- mented through the extension
module of Figure 2). Decom- posability is achieved introducing
auxiliary variables (e.g.,
Lagrangian multipliers, penalization terms, and aggregate in-
terference functions) that remove coupling across optimization
variables and generate objective functions and constraints with
separable terms in the sense of [37]. Unfortunately, coupling in
cellular networks involves heterogeneous network elements and
different layers of the protocol stack, resulting in optimization
problems whose utility or constraints are rarely separable. For
this reason, it is classified into hor- izontal coupling and
vertical coupling. The former reflects dependencies among different
network elements (e.g., among interfering base stations and their
subscribers). The latter, instead, concerns cross-layer
dependencies among different layers of the protocol stack of the
same element (e.g., MAC policies affect transmission power and
modulation strategies at the PHY layer). Coupling makes centralized
control of cellular networks extremely challenging as (i) the
number of variables of the problem grows exponentially with the
number of network elements, resulting in high computational and
time complexity; (ii) the TO needs to be fully aware of the
underlying network topology, the traffic demand, and the Channel
State Information (CSI) for each individual UE and base station,
and (iii) centralized approaches require real-time information
exchange between each network element and the centralized
controller, imposing high signaling overhead and latency. It is
worth to point out that such network real-time information is not
known at CellOS controller, but only at the edge elements. Due to
the fast changing network dynamics, though, the time required to
signal local information to the controller, compute a centralized
solution, and adopt it at the edge elements might exceed the
coherence time of the found solution. Such solutions, may refer to
an old network state and be obsolete, thus resulting in poor
performance. This makes distributed solutions highly desirable, if
not mandatory. Even though distributed algorithms might not always
guarantee globally optimal solutions, they usually manage to
compute locally optimal ones with significantly lower computational
complexity, while ensuring run-time performance [16, 17].
We point out that this work does not focus on proposing new
decomposition theories. Our aim, instead, is to automatically
generate distributed optimization programs based on a high- level
objective, irrespective of the decomposition method used.
Distributed Algorithms Generator.: The final step to achieve
distributed control of the cellular network is to gen- erate
distributed solution programs which can be executed and solved by
each base station via standard optimization solvers. This task is
performed by the distributed algorithms generator unit of CellOS
Optimization Framework (Figure 2). As mentioned, the Optimization
Framework is not cognizant of the value of parameters that are
known at run-time only. Accordingly, the distributed solution
programs contain sym- bols in place of these parameters. Each base
station will then replace these symbols with their actual value at
run-time, and associate optimization variables to the served UEs.
The instance mapper module has been designed to perform this task
(Figure 2). This is one of the most important features of CellOS as
it makes the solution program generation process (i) fully
automated; (ii) independent of network configuration, and (iii)
self-adapting to compute parameters at run-time based
6
on current network conditions. 3) Dispatcher and Abstraction
Module: The last two com-
ponents of the Optimization Framework are the solution program
dispatcher and the network abstraction module. The dispatcher
utilizes sockets to transfer the generated distributed solution
programs to each network base station, which will ex- ecute and
solve them to achieve the desired network objective.
The network abstraction module creates a high-level rep-
resentation of the network infrastructure, hiding low-level,
hardware/software details from the TO. This abstraction al- lows
the problem generation (Section III-B1) to automatically convert
directives and constraints given through the APIs of Section III-A
into mathematical expressions and utility functions.
C. Softwarized RAN
The third main component of the CellOS architecture (Figure 2) is
in charge of running the distributed solution programs at each
network element so as to reach the global network objective
requested by the TO. Once the dispatcher has delivered the
programs, the instance mapper component of the Reconfigurable Edge
Element (REE) replaces the symbolic placeholders in the program
with their corresponding run-time values. This component is capable
of dynamically adapting solution programs to current network
conditions, such as arrival/departure of UEs, handovers, and CSI.
At the end of this mapping procedure each program is executed by
the local solver and a solution is computed. As mentioned above,
CellOS uses decoupling terms (e.g., Lagrangian multipliers) to
allow individual base stations to coordinate with each other.
Relevant parameters are iteratively updated and exchanged among the
coupled REEs through already available inter-base station
interfaces (e.g., X2/Xn interfaces of cellular networks).
Since all the decisions are made locally at the base stations, at
most |U| (|N |+1) variables need to be exchanged at each iteration,
where U is the set of users, N are the available transmission
channels, and |·| denotes the cardinality operator. As we will
demonstrate in Section VI-C4 through experimen- tal results, this
overhead is negligible if compared to that of centralized
approaches, which need to gather local information at the central
controller. Because of this very limited signaling overhead, our
framework effectively self-adapts to the network fast changing
behavior. Upon computing optimal solutions for each local network
control problem (e.g., transmission and scheduling policies), these
are used by each REE through the Reconfigurable Protocol Stack
(RPS), which controls MAC and PHY layers, among others.
IV. CELLOS IN ACTION: AN EXAMPLE
We consider the scenario depicted in Figure 3b, where two
interfering eNBs in the set B share two channels and serve two UEs
each. Here, Ub is the set of users u served by eNB b ∈ B. We
consider a downlink cross-layer optimization problem where each eNB
has a transmission power budget Pmax, and that the UEs request a
minimum capacity Cmin. The optimiza- tion variables of this problem
concern MAC and PHY layers, namely, user scheduling and
transmission power allocation. In
this example, we assume that the TO uses CellOS to maximize the
network capacity. The TO first instantiates a network with two base
stations (nwk = Network(2)). Then the follow- ing network control
objective is set on the slice controlled by the TO:
nwk.set_utility(‘max(capacity)’, slices[0]).
On the other hand, CellOS needs to perform a more complex set of
operations to reach the objective specified so succinctly by the
TO. Let y = (y1,y2) represent the network scheduling profile, where
yb = (yb,1,n, yb,2,n)n=1,2
is the scheduling profile for eNB b∈{1, 2}. Let yb,u,n, instead,
represent the scheduling variable such that yb,u,n = 1 if user u is
scheduled for downlink transmission on channel n ∈ N = {1, 2} and
yb,u,n = 0, otherwise. Similarly, p=(p1,p2) represents the network
power allocation profile, where pb=(pb,1,n, pb,2,n)n=1,2 is the
power allocation profile for eNB b, and pb,u,n represents the
downlink transmission power from b to user u on channel n. Let
Cb,u,n(y,p) be the capacity for UE u served by eNB b on channel n,
expressed as
Cb,u,n(y,p)=B log2
∑ u′∈Ub′
, (2)
where B is the employed bandwidth, N is the background noise power,
and gb,u,n is the channel gain coefficient com- puted by u and sent
to b, as part of standard cellular networks signaling procedures
between user and base station (e.g., LTE Physical Uplink Control
Channel (PUCCH)).
The centralized network control problem can be expressed as the
following Capacity Maximization Problem (CMP)
maximize y,p∈X
2∑ n=1
2∑ n=1
yb,u,n ≤ 1, ∀b ∈ B,∀u ∈ Ub (5)
where (3) represents the users’ minimum capacity constraint, (4)
enforces eNBs’ power budget, and (5) guarantees that each eNB
allocates each channel to a single UE only.
The main challenges in decomposing (CMP) are: (i) It is a Mixed
Integer Non-Linear Programming problem, which is NP-hard in general
[38], and (ii) both (2) and (3) are coupled among different
eNBs.
CellOS recognizes y and p to be the problem optimization variables
and associates them to the MAC and PHY layers, respectively. Now,
the problem decomposition module under- stands which variables
belong to which eNB and creates a coupling graph similar to that in
Figure 3a. This is, then, used to detect the aggregate interference
term in the capacity
7
hb,u,n(y−b,p−b) = ∑
b′∈B\{b}
pb′,u′nyb′,u′,n (6)
where y−b = y\{yb} and p−b = p\{pb} are the scheduling and power
allocation variables of the eNBs belonging to B\{b}. At this point,
new auxiliary variables are introduced to rewrite (CEN) as
maximize y,p,i
∑ b∈B
∑ u∈Ub
Cb,u,n(yb,pb, ib) ≥ Cmin, ∀b ∈ B, u ∈ Ub
(7) ib,u,n ≥ hb,u,n(y−b,p−b),∀b ∈ B, u, n = 1, 2
(8) Constraints (4), (5)
CellOS can now use duality optimization tools to generate the
following Lagrangian dual function
L(λ,µ, i,y,p) = ∑ b∈B
µb,u,n (hb,u,n(y−b,p−b)− ib,u,n) , (9)
where λ = (λb,u,n) and µ = (µb,u,n) are the non-negative Lagrangian
multipliers used in constrained optimization [37].
We observe that problems (CMP) and (DCMP), and the Lagrangian dual
function (9) all aim at solving the centralized control problem
(CEN). However, the advantage of using (9) is that function L(λ,µ,
i,y,p) is written with separable variables, meaning that it can be
split into |B| sub-problems locally solvable by each eNB.
Finally, CellOS dispatches the generated distributed solu- tion
programs to the eNBs that populate them with network run-time
information (e.g., users’ channel coefficients), and compute
optimized solutions through their local solver.
It is worth noting that the procedures detailed in Sec- tions III-A
and III-B need to be executed only once per control problem
specified by the TO and that they take very little time to be
performed, e.g., 0.03 s for the example of this section (more
details on the scalability of CellOS automatic procedures will be
given in Section VI-C4).
V. OAI-BASED CELLOS PROTOTYPE
In this section, we discuss the prototypes of CellOS, which have
been built based on the OAI and srsLTE open-source RAN
implementations. The OAI-based prototype is illustrated in Figure
4.
The CellOS Controller performs the functionalities of the Problem
Definition APIs and of the Optimization Framework. Particularly, it
creates and maintains the network abstraction,
eNB Ctr. 2 GigEth
eNB Controller 1 (REE) Hardware: Dell Alienware AW15R3 Software:
Ubuntu 16.04 w/ low-latency kernel
Instance Mapper RPS: OpenAirInterface
Problem Generation
Problem Definition
Network Abstraction
Problem Decomposition
COTS Cellphones
Sa m
pl es
Di re
ct iv
Fig. 4: OAI-based CellOS prototype.
generates the optimization problem based on the directives from the
TO, and performs the problem decomposition. In our experiments the
decomposition process is obtained through Lagrangian duality theory
[37] and decomposition via partial linearization [16].
Multiple eNB Controllers, one for each base station, are connected
to the CellOS Controller through a Gigabit Ether- net connection.
These controllers use interior-point and sub- gradient algorithms
[37] to solve the received distributed programs, and set the
parameters to be used with the RF front- ends they are connected
to. Each of these controllers drives an Ettus Research Universal
Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) B210, which serves UEs over LTE
frequencies. As UEs we used a set of heterogeneous Commercial
Off-the-Shelf (COTS) cellular phones (Samsung Galaxy S5, S6 and S7,
and Apple iPhone 6s).
In this prototype, CellOS interfaces with the LTE protocol stack
implementation offered by OpenAirInterface, i.e., an open-source
software-based experimental platform for LTE implementations [25].
OAI features LTE RAN applications along with Evolved Packet Core
components. As OAI does not directly allow per-user power control,
or optimized PRB allocation—key essential requirements of many
network con- trol objectives—we have extended its functionalities
by signif- icantly modifying its core implementation. Specifically,
power control is obtained by amplitude-modulating the downlink data
signal intended for a specific UE. PRB allocation, instead, is
based on an optimized waterfilling-like fair scheduling algorithm
[39], which has low-complexity, thus complying with LTE strict
timing requirements. Because of the PRB short time duration it is
of utmost importance to compute the PRB allocation very quickly to
guarantee compliance with LTE and promptly serve the UEs. According
to our scheme, PRBs are allocated only to those UEs whose downlink
transmission buffer is not empty.
A similar approach has been followed for the srsLTE proto- type,
which leverages USRPs X310 in place of USRPs B210. This time, each
eNB controller connects to the Software- Defined Radio (SDR)
through a 10 Gbit/s PCI Express network card. In this prototype,
CellOS interfaces with the
8
open-source cellular protocol stack offered by srsLTE, which,
similarly to what done for OAI, has been extended to perform
PHY-layer power control by adjusting the USRPs transmission power,
and MAC-layer scheduling by optimally allocating PRBs to UEs.
VI. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
The effectiveness of CellOS in automatically creating dis- tributed
optimization programs from high-level directives, and in managing
the network infrastructure to reach different control objectives,
is demonstrated via experimentation on various LTE-compliant
testbeds. We describe our testbed in Section VI-A, we introduce the
investigated performance metrics in Section VI-B, and present our
experimental results in Section VI-C.
A. Network Scenarios and Testbed Settings
To demonstrate its platform-independence, we test CellOS over
different software and hardware platforms, using OAI and srsLTE, as
well as heterogeneous software-defined radios and testbeds.
The OAI-based prototype of Section V has been used in a testbed
composed of 3 eNBs and up to 9 UEs. Each eNB uses a 10MHz channel
bandwidth corresponding to 50 PRBs. For this prototype we consider
the two indoor scenarios depicted in Figure 5: (i) A high
interference scenario, where two eNBs are in line-of-sight
conditions and have largely overlapping coverage areas (Figure 5a),
and (ii) a low interference scenario where eNBs are in
non-line-of-sight conditions and their cov- erage areas only
partially overlap with each other (Figure 5b).
eNB UE
Fig. 5: The CellOS lab bench testbed.
The high interference scenario represents those crowded
environments (e.g., university campuses, concert halls or con-
vention centers) where several femtocells are deployed in a crowded
region to balance the traffic load of a macrocell farther away. In
this case, while the interference among macro- and femtocells is
small, femtocells with overlapping coverage areas are subject to
significant inter-cell interference. In the low interference
scenario, instead, eNBs are located far away from each other and,
thus, are less subject to inter-cell interference and the
subsequent performance degradation.
The srsLTE-based prototype is evaluated on a low- interference
setup on the Arena testbed [32]. We instantiated 3 LTE eNBs on
USRPs X310 whose antennas are connected to the ceiling of a 208.1
m2 office space. A set of Dell EMC PowerEdge R340 servers are used
to drive the USRPs through 10 Gigabit Ethernet connections. This
set of experiments shows that CellOS can simultaneously obtain
different control objectives on multiple network slices. This
represents the scenario in which multiple Mobile Virtual Network
Operators
(MVNOs) share the same edge elements, or that of a single TO
wishing to set diverse control problems on each network slice. To
demonstrate the benefits of automatic optimization of the open RAN,
we finally instantiate CellOS on the long-range open-source 5G
POWDER-RENEW platform [31], which is the combination of the
Platform for Open Wireless Data-driven Experimental Research
(POWDER) and Reconfigurable Eco- system for Next-generation
End-to-end Wireless (RENEW), and part of the Platforms for Advanced
Wireless Research (PAWR) [30].
We assess CellOS performance by letting UEs download a file stored
on our local server for 60 s. It is worth mentioning that it only
took CellOS 1.43 s and 8 lines of code (see Listing 1) to
automatically generate the evaluated distributed control programs
(more details on the scalability of these operations will be given
in Section VI-C4)
B. Performance Metrics
CellOS has been evaluated against the following metrics. • Sum
throughput of the network, defined as
S = ∑ b∈B
Sb,u, ∀b ∈ B, u ∈ Ub (10)
where B and Ub are the sets of the eNBs b and of UEs u they are
serving, and Sb,u is the throughput offered to u ∈ Ub by b.
• Normalized transmission power of the base stations to the UEs. To
analyze the impact of power control policies on the transmission
power of eNBs, we show the trans- mission power of the base
stations normalized to their maximum transmission power. Let
Pmax
b and Pmin b be the
maximum and minimum power levels of base station b, the normalized
transmission power is defined as
PN b,u =
, ∀b ∈ B, u ∈ Ub (11)
where Pb,u ∈ {Pmin b , Pmax
b } is the power used by eNB b ∈ B to transmit to its user u ∈
Ub.
• Global energy efficiency, defined as the amount of in- formation
per unit of energy the eNBs transmit to their subscribers:
EE =
u∈Ub Pb,u , ∀b ∈ B, u ∈ Ub (12)
where Pb,u is the power used by eNB b to transmit to its user
u.
• System fairness, measured through Jain’s equation [40]. Given
users u ∈ U =
b∈B Ub, Jain’s fairness index J
is defined as
C. Experimental Results
CellOS has been evaluated against the metrics of Sec- tion VI-B in
a variety of network configurations (i.e., high and low
interference, with and without network slicing),
9
(a) OAI w/ and w/o CellOS. (b) PRBs at time t1 and t2. (c)
Throughput and power. Fig. 6: Throughput maximization in the high
interference scenario on the OAI-based prototype.
Fig. 7: Power minimization in the high interference scenario on the
OAI-based prototype.
TABLE I: Summary of experimental setup.
Figure Optimization Problem Scenario RAN
Software Testbed
Fig. 10 max(rate)
Arena [32]
Fig. 14 Signaling Overhead
Fig. 15a max(rate) Long-range srsLTE [26] POWDER- RENEW [30,
31]
and on different testbeds, including a lab bench setup, the Arena
testbed [32], and the POWDER-RENEW PAWR 5G platform [30, 31].
To fully appreciate the effects of the automatic optimization
procedures introduced by CellOS, we consider a cellular net- work
implemented through OAI and srsLTE and we compare the achieved
network performance with and without CellOS. Moreover, we also
compare the performance achieved by state- of-the-art scheduling
algorithm commonly used in commer- cial cellular networks, i.e.,
proportional fairness, greedy, and round-robin, to that achieved by
CellOS-managed networks. A summary of our experimental setup is
shown in Table I.
1) High Interference Scenario: Figure 6 presents results ob- tained
when optimizing throughput (network control objective of max(rate))
in the high interference scenario in Figure 5a. We start by
evaluating the throughput gains brought to OAI by CellOS zero-touch
approach. Average total and per-user throughput are shown in Figure
6a. We observe that CellOS brings significant benefits to the
network performance, with improvements as high as 75% (63% on
average). This is because of the interplay between the optimized
per-user power control and scheduling determined by CellOS and
executed locally by the Softwarized RAN. Indeed, CellOS automatic
optimization procedures allow the eNBs to serve UEs with
an optimized resource allocation and power-controlled signals,
which significantly reduces the inter-cell interference while
guaranteeing a minimum rate to UEs. To provide further insights on
the resource allocation procedures automatically executed by each
eNB, we investigated the network through- put, and power and PRBs
allocated to the users during an experiment run of the max(rate)
solution program (Figures 6b and 6c, respectively). For clarity,
only the power for four users is shown. As time progresses, the
throughput (both total and per-user) plateaus out to a stable
value, which is a consequence of local optimality of the solution
program that successfully limits interference. Power is changed for
the individual user in time, also responding to optimization
requirements and reflecting current network conditions. Figure 6b
depicts the PRBs allocated to UEs at time instants t1 and t2 of
Figure 6c. We observe that the eNBs adapt the PRB allocation in
real- time to satisfy user requests while achieving the set network
objective. In fact, time slots with unassigned PRBs may even occur,
without compromising the eNB ability of satisfying its subscribers
requirements.
To show that different network control objectives produce different
results, we investigate throughput and power deter- mined by CellOS
for power minimization (control objective of min(power)), while
guaranteeing a minimum per-user data rate of 1Mbit/s (Figure 7). As
expected, the achieved throughput is lower than that of the
max(rate) control program (Figure 6c). This is due to the
normalized transmission power of the eNBs being remarkably lower
than that in Figure 6c (up to one order of magnitude). We notice,
though that UEs achieve an average throughput of 2.63 Mbit/s, which
satisfies the constraint on their minimum rate.
The next set of experiments concerns the performance of OAI with
and without CellOS in scenarios with varying number of eNBs and
UEs. The network control objective requires to maximize throughput
while explicitly accounting for fairness, namely, is set to
max(sum(log(rate))). Scenarios with one base station consider only
eNB3, while Scenarios with two base stations concern eNB2 and eNB3,
i.e., the base stations with overlapping cells (see Figure 5a).
Results concerning sum throughput, energy efficiency and fairness
are shown in Figure 8.
The throughput comparison is shown in Figure 8a, where we
10
(c) Fairness.
Fig. 8: Sum-log-rate maximization in the high interference scenario
on the OAI-based prototype w/ and w/o CellOS.
can see that OAI with CellOS always outperforms OAI without CellOS.
In Figure 8b, we evaluate energy efficiency, pivotal in large-scale
networks [41]. As expected, since our framework achieves a higher
throughput with a lower power expendi- ture, the network is more
energy efficient when managed by CellOS. System fairness is shown
in Figure 8c. We notice that, in general, CellOS improves user
fairness, with increases up to 29%. Improvements are more evident
in scenarios with higher number of eNBs and UEs, as optimization
techniques are more effective in those more dense scenarios with
higher interference. Specifically, since in these scenarios
suboptimal algorithm solutions generate inefficient resource
allocation policies, optimal ones are required the most. Indeed,
CellOS optimized resource allocation, and its ability to fine-tune
the power directed to the served UEs allows the base stations to
contain the interference directed to other eNBs, thus increasing
the network performance.
2) Low Interference Scenario: These experiments con- cern 3 eNBs
and 9 UEs in low interference conditions (Figure 5b). Results on
throughput and on the allocated
Fig. 9: Sum-log-rate maximization in the low interference scenario
on the OAI-based prototype w/ CellOS.
normalized power are shown in Figure 9. In this scenario CellOS is
required to optimize the network control objec- tive
max(sum(log(rate))). As expected, performance is better than in the
high interference scenario because of the lower interference level,
that allows the eNBs to use higher power without disrupting each
other transmissions. In Figure 10, we compare CellOS rate
maximization with two well-known state- of-the-art scheduling
algorithms: The proportional fairness algorithm, that is the de
facto standard in cellular networks [7,
42], and the greedy algorithm [43]. We notice that CellOS
Time [s]
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fig. 10: Rate maximization in the low interference scenario: OAI w/
CellOS vs. OAI w/ proportional fairness [42] and OAI w/ greedy [43]
scheduling policies.
outperforms the proportional fairness algorithm because of this
overarching optimization approach to network management. The greedy
approach, instead, obtains throughput levels simi- lar to those of
CellOS, albeit with a significant delay. Indeed, because of its
optimized MAC-layer procedures, which allow the network base
stations to mindfully allocate resources to the served UEs, CellOS
achieves said throughput level after only few seconds from the
system start and maintains it until the UEs finish downloading
data.
3) Network Slicing: This set of experiments concerns 3 eNBs
instantiated on the USRPs X310 of the Arena testbed [32] through
srsLTE. The eNBs serve 9 COTS UEs. The antennas of the USRPs are
hung off the ceiling of a 208.1 m2 office space.
We target a scenario in which multiple MVNOs lease infrastructure
resources from an Infrastructure Provider (IP). The IP, which owns
the physical equipment (e.g., the base stations), allocates slices
of the network to MVNOs following, for instance, the approach
described in [29]. Since MVNOs act independently from one another,
with different subscribers and requirements (e.g., quality of
service), they may need to optimize different control programs on
their slice of the network. Considering this, and cognizant of
current 5G cellular networks trends, we designed CellOS to handle
different network slicing configurations.
Figure 11 showcases the unique ability of CellOS in im- plementing
different control strategies for different network slices,
simultaneously optimizing different control programs on different
network slices, namely, Slice 1 and Slice 2, on each eNB.
Specifically, Slice 1, which is allocated to MVNO 1, aims at
maximizing the network throughput, while Slice 2, allocated to MVNO
2, minimizes the power consumption. The network sum and average
throughput achieved by this per- slice behavior are shown in Figure
11. In our experiments, the two slices were allocated different
percentages of the available PRBs (see Figure 11c): First 70% to
Slice 1 and 30% to Slice 2 (Case A of Figure 11), then 50% to each
slice (Case B), and finally a 30%–70% allocation was used (Case C).
Figure 11a shows the throughput of Slice 1 in the three cases.
Figure 11b presents that of Slice 2. As expected, the throughput of
the max(rate) control program instantiated by MVNO 1 on Slice 1
increases with the resources allocated to the slice. On the
contrary, the throughput performance of
11
A
B
C
(c)
Fig. 11: Optimization of different control programs on different
slices on the srsLTE-based prototype instantiated on the Arena
testbed [32]: (a) Throughput of Slice 1 (max(rate)); (b) throughput
of Slice 2 (min(power)); (c) PRB allocation.
the min(power) control program instantiated by MVNO 2 on Slice 2
does not increase with the resources allocated to the slice. All
three configurations of Figure 11b converge toward 7 Mbit/s. This
is due to the fact that this control problem aims at reaching the
minimum per-user rate constraint set by the TO without consuming
all available network resources. By looking at Figure 11, we notice
that CellOS managed to independently optimize different control
problems on different slices of the network (max(rate on Slice 1,
and min(power) on Slice 2). This demonstrates that CellOS provides
softwarized MVNOs with independent control of all resources in
their leased network slice while sharing the same physical network
infrastructure.
4) CellOS Scalability: In this section, we evaluate the scalability
of CellOS in terms of time and operations required by the
controller to generate distributed solution programs, and by the
REEs to solve them. Finally, we compare the overhead generated by
CellOS REEs to that of state-of-the-art solutions, such as FlexRAN
[13] and Orion [44]. The results presented
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of eNBs
2 UEs per eNB
5 UEs per eNB
10 UEs per eNB
Fig. 12: Scalability of CellOS controller operations as a function
of the number of eNBs, UEs and for different network control
problems.
in this section have been obtained by executing CellOS on a single
CPU of a Dell EMC PowerEdge R340 server of the Arena testbed [32].
The server is equipped with an Intel Xeon E-2146G processor with
3.5 GHz base frequency and 32 GB DDR4-2666 RAM.
Figure 12 shows the time needed by CellOS controller to generate
the distributed solution programs starting from the TO directives
as a function of the number of network eNBs, UEs, and for different
network control problems. This includes the
time to perform: (i) The problem definition procedures, which
interpret the TO high level directives; (ii) the generation of the
centralized version of the problem based on an abstraction of the
network, and (iii) the problem decomposition operations, which
divide the centralized problem into sub-problems to be
distributively solved by the softwarized RAN. We notice that, even
though the computation time increases with the number of users and
base stations, these operations are executed once per control
problem. Also, recall that the generated problems utilize symbolic
placeholders and do not require knowledge of real-time parameters.
For this reason, all operations can be performed offline, and
computation times are thus negligible if compared to the typical
service times of cellular networks.
Figure 13 shows the time needed by CellOS REEs to solve the
distributed problems automatically generated by the controller
(Section III) for different numbers of base stations and UEs in the
network. Different control problems require different solution
times. For instance, the power minimiza-
2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of eNBs
o lv
e r
T im
e [ s ]
2 UEs per eNB
5 UEs per eNB
10 UEs per eNB
Fig. 13: Scalability of CellOS local solver operations as a
function of the number of eNBs, UEs and for different network
control problems: (i) Rate maximization (solid lines); (ii)
sum-log-rate maximization (dot-dashed lines), and (iii) power
minimization (dashed lines).
tion problem, whose objective function is a linear function in the
transmission power variables, is solved more rapidly than the rate
and sum-log-rate maximization problems, whose utility functions are
non-linear because of logarithmic and fractional terms, which
increase the problem complexity. As a consequence, the execution
time of each problem strongly depends on the complexity of the
underlying objective function
12
to be optimized. It is worth noticing that the times of both
Figures 12 and 13 can be considerably reduced if executed on
high-performance equipment, as the one typically used in commercial
cellular network deployments.
The signaling overhead generated by each CellOS REE is evaluated in
Figure 14 against that generated by other well- established
software-defined cellular control frameworks such as FlexRAN [13]
and Orion [44]. Since CellOS executes the optimization problems
locally at each REE, its overhead stems from the REEs exchanging
|U| (|N |+1) optimization variables and Lagrangian multipliers.
These are the only information required to converge to a
distributed problem so- lution (Section III-C). These variables are
represented by real numbers encoded as 32-bit floating point
numbers. Figure 14
5 10 15 20
10 -1
10 0
10 1
CellOS, 2 eNBs
CellOS, 3 eNBs
CellOS, 4 eNBs
CellOS, 5 eNBs
CellOS, 6 eNBs
CellOS, 7 eNBs
FlexRAN, 1 eNB
Orion, 1 eNB
Fig. 14: Signaling overhead: CellOS vs. FlexRAN [13, Figure 7] and
Orion [44, Figure 13a].
shows that the signaling overhead generated by CellOS REEs is
significantly lower than that of prevailing state-of-the-art
centralized approaches. Even when managing a single network base
station, as it is the case of Figure 14, previous approaches must
exchange a massive amount of local information with the central
controller, thus generating large signaling and latency.
5) Experiment of POWDER-RENEW PAWR Platform: We demonstrate the
platform- and RAN-independence of CellOS by running long-range
experiments on one of the PAWR wireless platforms [30].
Specifically, we leverage POWDER- RENEW [31] and the 5G
implementation of srsLTE to deploy a NR gNB and 2 UEs in an
authentic outdoor wireless environment. The gNB employs a USRP X310
located on the rooftop of a 28.75 m-tall building, while we use
ground-level USRPs B210 as UEs. The gNB utilizes a reduced channel
bandwidth of 15 PRBs (corresponding to 3 MHz) to reach the two UEs
distant 270 m and 420 m, respectively (see Figure 15b). In this
case, the UEs download a file from a local server for 400 s.
Figure 15a shows the throughput gains achievable by run- ning
CellOS rate maximization on top of srsLTE, which uses a round-robin
scheduler when instantiated without CellOS. Albeit the reduced
bandwidth and increased gNB-UEs distance result in a lower total
throughput than that of the previous experiments, we notice that
CellOS significantly improves the network performance because of
its zero-touch approach to optimization, which allows to optimize
the resources allocated to the UEs, and bring gains as high as 86%
(23% on average). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
demonstration of zero-touch optimization on a long-range
open-source 5G
(a)
(b)
Fig. 15: Long-range experiments on the POWDER-RENEW PAWR platform
[30, 31]: (a) srsLTE w/ CellOS rate maximization vs. srsLTE w/
round-robin; (b) long-range experiment area.
testbed. Such instantiation gives evidence of the potential of the
softwarized Open RAN approach cellular networks are moving
toward.
VII. RELATED WORK
Recent years have heralded SDN as the technology that would
inherently endow the monolithic Internet architecture with much
needed flexibility. The largest part of SDN work focuses on the
programmability of wired networks, with few works exploring
scenarios comprising wireless devices [12– 14, 45–48]. To the best
of our knowledge, there is no solution aimed at integrating a
zero-touch, flexible, and dynamic opti- mization framework to the
fabric of cellular networks. There- fore, this section reviews
SDN-based solutions for wireless networking.
Guan et al. proposed WNOS, a wireless network operating system
featuring network virtualization and distributed solu- tion of
optimization problems [14]. Although this work is the most similar
to ours, it only focuses on infrastructure- less ad hoc networks
with static nodes. For this reason, it is not suitable to handle
mobile and dynamic cellular scenarios. An effort to explicitly take
mobility into account is made by Bertizzolo et al. with
SwarmControl, a distributed control framework for the
self-optimization of drone networks [49].
ONAP and O-RAN are two infrastructure-oriented automa- tion
platforms with the ambition of “orchestrating” many network
functions [22, 23]. They offer TOs network abstrac- tions to
specify system details and traffic policies. However, optimization
policies and algorithms must be explicitly pro- grammed.
Adaptations of the SDN paradigm to cellular networks have been
proposed by Li et al. (CellSDN [47]), Bernardos
13
et al. (SDWN [50]), and by Bradai et al. (CSDN [48]). CellSDN
proposes a control-oriented operating system fo- cused on cellular
network management and subscriber policies rather than on
performance optimization. Works like SDWN and CSDN, instead,
describe general frameworks to optimize network utilization and
performance leveraging edge network information.
Few works have addressed the interplay between the SDN architecture
and that of networks including LTE explicitly. Gudipati et al.
envision SoftRAN as an abstraction of all eNBs in a geographical
area as a single virtual base station to perform operations
including metrics optimization [46]. This centralized approach,
however, can hardly address het- erogeneous optimization problems
in the dense, flexible and rapidly growing architecture of 5G
cellular networks. Foukas et al. propose FlexRAN [13] and Orion
[44] as centralized controllers coordinating various LTE agents,
and supporting network slicing, respectively. These systems,
though, neglect optimization, and their centralized nature may
result in limited scalability and reduce the performance in dense
scenarios. Finally, OpenRadio, by Bansal et al., develops a
programmable wireless data plane providing programming interfaces
on PHY and MAC layers [45]. Optimization, however, is left to the
wits of the TO.
Finally, we notice that all the mentioned solutions for cellular
networks propose programmable protocol stack im- plementations
where the optimization procedures need to be manually designed and
there is no way to perform them dynamically or automatically.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
We presented CellOS, the first zero-touch optimization and
management framework for next-generation cellular open RANs. CellOS
enables TOs to automatically optimize the network behavior through
high-level directives without re- quiring knowledge of optimization
theory or of network specifics. CellOS automatically generates
distributed solu- tion programs to be run at the base stations to
simultane- ously optimize heterogeneous objectives on different
network slices. We prototyped CellOS by using the LTE-compliant
OpenAirInterface and srsLTE software, and demonstrated its
capabilities through a experimental campaign under varying indoor
settings, characterized by different interference condi- tions and
heterogeneous devices. Results indicate that CellOS remarkably
improves key performance metrics when compared with existing
solutions, including throughput (up to 86%), energy efficiency (up
to 84%), and user fairness (up to 29%). Finally, we evaluated
CellOS in the outdoor environment of the POWDER-RENEW PAWR 5G
platform, providing long-range links. Results from those
experiments confirm the effectiveness of CellOS in obtaining
superior performance and indicate a new way of managing and
optimizing softwarized cellular networks.
REFERENCES [1] Radisys. (2019) Open RAN - Enabling the O-RAN of the
Future Today.
hub.radisys.com/white-papers/open-ran-enabling-the-o-ran-future.
[2] Telecom Infra Project. (2019) OpenRAN: The Next Generation of
Radio
Access Networks.
https://telecominfraproject.com/wp-content/uploads/
OpenRAN-v11082019-vFinal.pdf.
[3] S. Kumar, E. Hamed, D. Katabi, and L. E. Li, “LTE Radio
Analytics Made Easy and Accessible,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communica- tion Review, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 211–222, August
2014.
[4] D. Gonzalez G., M. Garcia-Lozano, S. Ruiz Boque, and D. S. Lee,
“Optimization of Soft Frequency Reuse for Irregular LTE
Macrocellular Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2410–2423, May 2013.
[5] I. Siomina and D. Yuan, “Analysis of Cell Load Coupling for LTE
Network Planning and Optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2287–2297, June 2012.
[6] L. Korowajczuk, LTE, WiMAX and WLAN Network Design,
Optimization and Performance Analysis. Chichester, United Kingdom:
John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[7] R. Margolies, A. Sridharan, V. Aggarwal, R. Jana, N. K.
Shankara- narayanan, V. A. Vaishampayan, and G. Zussman,
“Exploiting Mobility in Proportional Fair Cellular Scheduling:
Measurements and Algo- rithms,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 355–367, February 2016.
[8] S. Mair. (2019) AT&T 2019 5G Recap: New Year, New Ways for
AT&T Customers to Connect.
https://about.att.com/innovationblog/ 2020/01/2019 5g
recap.html.
[9] O-RAN Alliance. (2020) The O-RAN Alliance and the Telecom Infra
Project (TIP) Reach New Level of Collaboration for OpenRadio Access
Networks. https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/5ad774cce74940d7115044b0/t/5e54df89a726e63147f0b569/
1582620555237/2020-02-25 O-RAN-TIP-PR-v1.0.pdf.
[10] ——. (2020) O-RAN Alliance Continues to Grow as Global
Operators and Suppliers Reach Across Borders to Collaborate on Open
Innovation in Radio Access Networks. https://static1.squarespace.
com/static/5ad774cce74940d7115044b0/t/5e4ed59178b98159a8b1f881/
1582224786007/2020-02-20 O-RAN+progress+PR v1.0.pdf.
[11] ——. (2019) O-RAN Alliance Conducts First Global Plugfest to
Foster Adoption of Open and Interoperable 5G Radio Access Networks.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ad774cce74940d7115044b0/
t/5dfba8fb1326ae1bcf4a8b6f/1576773884092/O-RAN-2019.12.
19-EC-C-PR-on-2019-Plugfest-v1.0.pdf.
[12] D. Thembelihle, M. Rossi, and D. Munaretto, “Softwarization of
Mobile Network Functions Towards Agile and Energy Efficient 5G
Architec- tures: A Survey,” Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing, vol. 2017, pp. 1–21, November 2017.
[13] X. Foukas, N. Nikaein, M. M. Kassem, M. K. Marina, and K.
Konto- vasilis, “FlexRAN: A Flexible and Programmable Platform for
Software- Defined Radio Access Networks,” in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM
Conf. on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT),
Irvine, CA, USA, December 2016.
[14] Z. Guan, L. Bertizzolo, E. Demirors, and T. Melodia, “WNOS: An
Optimization-based Wireless Network Operating System,” in Proc. ACM
Intl. Symp. on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design
for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing (MobiHoc), Los Angeles,
CA, USA, June 2018.
[15] D. Lynch, M. Fenton, D. Fagan, S. Kucera, H. Claussen, and M.
O’Neill, “Automated Self-optimization in Heterogeneous Wireless
Communica- tions Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking,
vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 419–432, February 2019.
[16] G. Scutari, F. Facchinei, P. Song, D. P. Palomar, and J. S.
Pang, “Decomposition by Partial Linearization: Parallel
Optimization of Multi- agent Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 641–656, February 2014.
[17] G. Scutari, F. Facchinei, and L. Lampariello, “Parallel and
Distributed Methods for Constrained Nonconvex Optimization—Part I:
Theory,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 8,
pp. 1929–1944, April 2016.
[18] ETSI ZSM. (2019, August) Zero-touch Network and Service
Manage- ment Reference Architecture.
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi gs/ZSM/ 001 099/002/01.01.01
60/gs ZSM002v010101p.pdf.
[19] 3GPP, “Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Generation
Access Technologies,” TS 38.913, V14.1.0, 2018.
[20] ——, “NR and NG-RAN Overall Description,” TS 38.300, V15.0.0,
2018.
[21] 3GPP, “Release description; Release 15,” 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR) 21.915, 10 2019,
version 15.0.0. [Online]. Available:
http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/21915.htm
[22] The Linux Foundation. (2018) Open Network Automation Plat-
form Architecture.
https://www.onap.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/ 2018/11/ONAP
CaseSolution Architecture 112918FNL.pdf.
[23] O-RAN Alliance. (2018, October) O-RAN: Towards an Open and
Smart RAN. https://www.o-ran.org/s/O-RAN-WP-FInal-181017.pdf.
[24] I. Afolabi, T. Taleb, K. Samdanis, A. Ksentini, and H. Flinck,
“Network Slicing and Softwarization: A Survey on Principles,
Enabling Technolo- gies, and Solutions,” IEEE Communications
Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2429–2453, March
2018.
[25] F. Kaltenberger, A. P. Silva, A. Gosain, L. Wang, and T.-T.
Nguyen, “OpenAirInterface: Democratizing Innovation in the 5G Era,”
Computer Networks, no. 107284, May 2020.
[26] I. Gomez-Miguelez, A. Garcia-Saavedra, P. Sutton, P. Serrano,
C. Cano, and D. Leith, “srsLTE: An Open-source Platform for LTE
Evolution and Experimentation,” in Proc. of ACM Intl. Workshop
onWireless Network Testbeds, Experimental evaluation &
CHaracterization (WiNTECH), New York City, NY, USA, October
2016.
[27] S. D’Oro, F. Restuccia, and T. Melodia, “Toward
Operator-to-Waveform 5G Radio Access Network Slicing,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 4, April 2020.
[28] S. D’Oro, F. Restuccia, A. Talamonti, and T. Melodia, “The
Slice is Served: Enforcing Radio Access Network Slicing in
Virtualized 5G Systems,” in Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computer
Communications (INFOCOM), Paris, France, April 2019.
[29] S. D’Oro, L. Bonati, F. Restuccia, M. Polese, M. Zorzi, and T.
Melodia, “Sl-EDGE: Network Slicing at the Edge,” in Proc. of ACM
Intl. Symp. on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design
for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing (MobiHoc), Shanghai,
China, October 2020.
[30] Platforms for Advanced Wireless Research.
https://advancedwireless. org.
[31] Platform for Open Wireless Data-driven Experimental Research.
https: //www.powderwireless.net.
[32] L. Bertizzolo, L. Bonati, E. Demirors, and T. Melodia, “Arena:
A 64- antenna SDR-based Ceiling Grid Testbed for Sub-6 GHz Radio
Spec- trum Research,” in Proc. of ACM Intl. Workshop onWireless
Network Testbeds, Experimental evaluation & CHaracterization
(WiNTECH), Los Cabos, Mexico, October 2019.
[33] M. Mezzavilla, M. Zhang, M. Polese, R. Ford, S. Dutta, S.
Rangan, and M. Zorzi, “End-to-End Simulation of 5G mmWave
Networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 2237–2263, April 2018.
[34] L. Bonati, M. Polese, S. D’Oro, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia,
“Open, Programmable, and Virtualized 5G Networks: State-of-the-Art
and the Road Ahead,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10027 [cs.NI], May
2020.
[35] 3GPP, “Study on CU-DU Lower Layer Split for NR,” 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR)
38.816, 01 2018, version 15.0.0. [Online]. Available:
http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/ 38816.htm
[36] S. D’Oro, P. Mertikopoulos, A. L. Moustakas, and S. Palazzo,
“Interference-Based Pricing for Opportunistic Multicarrier
Cognitive Ra- dio Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 6536–6549, December
2015.
[37] D. P. Bertsekas, Convex Optimization Algorithms. Nashua, NH,
USA: Athena Scientific Belmont, 2015.
[38] J. Lee and S. Leyffer, Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming.
New York, NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media,
2011.
[39] G. Scutari, D. Palomar, and S. Barbarossa, “The MIMO Iterative
Wa- terfilling Algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1917–1935, May 2009.
[40] R. K. Jain, D. M. W. Chiu, and E. R. Hawe, “A Quantitative
Measure of Fairness and Discrimination for Resource Allocation in
Shared Computer System,” Eastern Research Laboratory, Digital
Equipment Corporation: Hudson, MA, USA, pp. 2–7, September
1984.
[41] 3GPP, “Telecommunication management;Study on system and
functional aspects of energy efficiency in 5G networks,” 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR)
32.972, 9 2019, version 16.1.0. [Online]. Available:
http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/32972.htm
[42] T. Bu, L. E. Li, and R. Ramjee, “Generalized Proportional Fair
Schedul- ing in Third Generation Wireless Data Networks,” in Proc.
of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computer Communications (INFOCOM),
Barcelona, Spain, April 2006.
[43] X. Wu, R. Srikant, and J. R. Perkins, “Scheduling Efficiency
of Dis- tributed Greedy Scheduling Algorithms in Wireless
Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 6, no. 6,
pp. 595–605, June 2007.
[44] X. Foukas, M. Marina, and K. Kontovasilis, “Orion: RAN Slicing
for a Flexible and Cost-Effective Multi-Service Mobile Network
Architec- ture,” in Proc. of ACM Intl. Conf. on Mobile Computing
and Networking (MobiCom), Snowbird, UT, USA, October 2017.
[45] M. Bansal, J. Mehlman, S. Katti, and P. Levis, “OpenRadio: A
Pro- grammable Wireless Dataplane,” in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM
Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking (HotSDN),
Helsinki, Finland, August 2012.
[46] A. Gudipati, D. Perry, L. E. Li, and S. Katti, “SoftRAN:
Software Defined Radio Access Network,” in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM
Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking (HotSDN),
Hong Kong, China, August 2013.
[47] L. E. Li, M. Z. Mao, and J. Rexford. (2012) CellSDN :
Software-defined Cellular Networks.
ftp://ftp.cs.princeton.edu/techreports/2012/922.pdf.
[48] A. Bradai, K. Singh, T. Ahmed, and T. Rasheed, “Cellular
Software Defined Networking: A Framework,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 36–43, June 2015.
[49] L. Bertizzolo, S. D’Oro, L. Ferranti, L. Bonati, E. Demirors,
Z. Guan, T. Melodia, and S. Pudlewski, “SwarmControl: An Automated
Dis- tributed Control Framework for Self-Optimizing Drone
Networks,” in Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computer Communications
(INFOCOM), Toronto, ON, Canada, July 2020.
[50] C. J. Bernardos, A. de la Oliva, P. Serrano, A. Banchs, L. M.
Contreras, H. Jin, and J. C. Zuniga, “An Architecture for Software
Defined Wireless Networking,” IEEE Wireless Communications
Magazine, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 52–61, June 2014.
Leonardo Bonati received his B.S. in Information Engineering and
his M.S. in Telecommunication En- gineering from University of
Padova, Italy in 2014 and 2016, respectively. He is currently
pursuing a Ph.D. degree in Computer Engineering at North- eastern
University, MA, USA. His research interests focus on 5G cellular
networks, network slicing, software-defined networking for wireless
networks, and unmanned aerial vehicles networks.
Salvatore D’Oro received received his Ph.D. de- gree from the
University of Catania in 2015. He is currently an Associate
Research Scientist at Northeastern University. In 2015, 2016 and
2017 he organized the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Workshops on COmpetitive and
COoperative Approaches for 5G networks (COCOA). He also served on
the Technical Program Committee (TPC) of the IEEE Conference on
Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN’18), Med-Hoc-Net
2018 and the CoCoNet8 workshop at IEEE ICC 2016. He serves on the
TPC
of Elsevier Computer Communications journal. Dr. D’Oro is also a
reviewer for major IEEE and ACM journals and conferences. Dr.
D’Oro’s research interests include game-theory, optimization,
learning and their applications to telecommunication networks. He
is a Member of the IEEE.
Lorenzo Bertizzolo is a candidate for Ph.D. in Computer Engineering
and research assistant at the Institute for the Wireless Internet
of Things at Northeastern University and a collaborator of AT&T
Labs Research, working on the integration of Un- manned Aerial
System into the next generations’ cellular networks. He earned his
B.S. and his M.S. in Computer and Communication Networks Engi-
neering from Politecnico di Torino, Italy in 2014 and 2015,
respectively. His research focuses on 5G, software-defined
networking for wireless networks,
distributed optimization, and Unmanned Aerial Networks.
Emrecan Demirors is a Research Assistant Pro- fessor with the
Department of Electrical and Com- puter Engineering at Northeastern
University. He is conducting research at the Wireless Networks and
Embedded Systems Laboratory. Previously, he was an Associate
Research Scientist with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering at North- eastern University, from 2017 to 2019. He
received my Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engi- neering
from Northeastern University in 2017, under the supervision of
Professor Tommaso Melodia. He
had previously received my B.S. and M.S degrees in Electrical and
Electronics Engineering from Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey in
2009 and 2011, respectively, under the supervision of Professor
Hayrettin Koymen. From 2010 to 2011, he was a Systems Engineer at
Meteksan Defence Industry Inc., Ankara, Turkey.
Zhangyu Guan is an Assistant Professor with the Department of
Electrical Engineering (EE) at The State University of New York at
Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo). He received his Ph.D. in Communication and
Information Systems from Shandong University in China in 2010. Dr.
Guan was a visiting Ph.D. student with the Department of EE, SUNY
Buffalo, from 2009 to 2010. He also worked at UB as a Postdoctoral
Research Associate from 2012 to 2015. After that, he worked as an
Associate Research Sci- entist with the Department of ECE at
Northeastern
University in Boston, MA, from 2015 to 2018. He directs the
Wireless Intelligent Networking and Security (WINGS) Lab at SUNY
Buffalo, with research interests in modeling, control, and system
design toward next- generation, intelligent and secure wireless
networking.
Stefano Basagni is with the Institute for the Wire- less Internet
of Things and an associate professor at the ECE Department at
Northeastern University, in Boston, MA. He holds a Ph.D. in
electrical engineering from the University of Texas at Dallas
(December 2001) and a Ph.D. in computer science from the University
of Milano, Italy (May 1998). Dr. Basagni’s current interests
concern research and implementation aspects of mobile networks and
wireless communications systems, wireless sensor networking for IoT
(underwater and terrestrial), def-
inition and performance evaluation of network protocols and
theoretical and practical aspects of distributed algorithms. Dr.
Basagni has published over nine dozen of highly cited, refereed
technical papers and book chapters. His h-index is currently 44
(June 2020). He is also co-editor of three books. Dr. Basagni
served as a guest editor of multiple international ACM/IEEE, Wiley
and Elsevier journals. He has been the TPC co-chair of
international conferences. He is a distinguished scientist of the
ACM, a senior member of the IEEE, and a member of CUR (Council for
Undergraduate Education).
Tommaso Melodia is the William Lincoln Smith Chair Professor with
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
Northeastern Univer- sity in Boston. He is also the Founding
Director of the Institute for the Wireless Internet of Things and
the Director of Research for the PAWR Project Office. He received
his Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the Georgia
Institute of Technology in 2007. He is a recipient of the National
Science Foundation CAREER award. Prof. Melodia has served as
Associate Editor of IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, Elsevier Computer Networks, among others. He has
served as Technical Program Committee Chair for IEEE Infocom 2018,
General Chair for IEEE SECON 2019, ACM Nanocom 2019, and ACM WUWnet
2014. Prof. Melodia is the Director of Research for the Platforms
for Advanced Wireless Research (PAWR) Project Office, a $100M
public-private partnership to establish 4 city-scale platforms for
wireless research to advance the US wireless ecosystem in years to
come. Prof. Melodia’s research on modeling, optimization, and
experimental evaluation of Internet-of-Things and wireless
networked systems has been funded by the National Science
Foundation, the Air Force Research Laboratory the Office of Naval
Research, DARPA, and the Army Research Laboratory. Prof. Melodia is
a Fellow of the IEEE and a Senior Member of the ACM.
I Introduction
II-A A Brief Overview of 5G NR
II-B CellOS in a Nutshell
III CellOS Architecture
III-C Softwarized RAN
V OAI-based CellOS Prototype
VI-B Performance Metrics
VI-C Experimental Results
VII Related Work